The next mass shooting will take place on February 12, 2014, in Spokane, Washington. It will be committed by an emotionally disturbed, 38 year-old white man who will kill seven people and wound six more at a place he used to work using a semi-automatic handgun he purchased legally in the state.

That, at least, is what a look at the data on past such shootings might indicate. We'll say at the outset: Every assertion in the first paragraph is a function of probability, not fact. The next mass shooting — which will happen somewhere, sometime — will almost certainly not be in that place at that time. But a look at the historic data on such killings, compiled and shared by Mother Jones magazine, makes each of those predictions defensible.

If President Obama's second term has been beset by "unpredictable calamities" like the Navy Yard shooting, in the words of the Washington Post's David Nakamura, we thought we'd try and offer a little prediction. Especially since, if such incidents occur at the same pace for the rest of Obama's term as they have since 2009, there could be 14 more before he leaves office.

White man

Looking at the past 30-plus years of spree- and mass-shootings, this is the easiest trend to spot. Nearly two-thirds of the 67 incidents — 65.7 percent — were at the hands of a white person. Only one was committed by a female. It is indisputable: white men are most likely to commit such acts, though not exclusively.

Shooting at work

Most of the shootings in the database occurred at a place of business, either one where the shooter worked or a restaurant or other such facility. Workplace-related shootings are twice as common as school shootings, for example, which has implications for other demographic predictions. The largest category of shootings is "Other," with nearly half of all shootings taking place at some public location. Workplace shootings comprise just under a third of incidents. Of all of our predictions, this one is the most tenuous.

38 years old

By focusing on the workplace as the site of the incident, it allowed us to better refine the age of the shooter. School shootings are, somewhat obviously, undertaken by younger people. Narrowing the possible venues for an incident to workplaces and other venues, we were able to calculate the average age of men committing such crimes: 38. Include school shootings, and that age drops to 35.6.

Mental health

While mental health issues are often tricky to diagnose, it's clear that there exists a correlation between a pattern of mental illness and involvement in mass shootings. Those asked after the fact are probably more likely to have seen signs of mental illness, of course; killing a dozen people tends to taint past perceptions. The Mother Jones index has documented examples of treatment attempts, for example, lending as much objectivity as possible. And it shows that about 63 percent of those involved in mass shootings had some history of mental health issues.

Legally-purchased handgun purchased in-state

The vast majority of guns used in mass killings were obtained legally — 81.8 percent. Advocates of gun control will note that this bolsters the case for tighter restrictions, particularly given the overlap between those with mental health issues and those able to buy guns. Opponents of gun control will note that nearly a fifth of shootings used illegally obtained guns, suggesting that new controls won't prevent such shootings.

We were curious about where the guns were obtained, envisioning a possibility that those who live in states or locations with tighter gun control laws might go to another state to buy a weapon (as the shooter in the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard attack did). Almost three-quarters of the time, the guns were purchased in the same state as the incident.

As for the type of weapon, the database did most of the work on this, too. Not every shooter used a semi-automatic handgun, but at each of the workplace or "other" events, such a weapon was the most common one present.

February 2014

This was one of the more complex calculations. In order to calculate it, we first wanted to figure out how frequently shooting incidents happened. So we figured out how many days passed, on average, between them. Over the past 30 years, that figure is about 222 days — seven months or so. But as we noted on Monday, the pace of shootings has increased dramatically recently. Since the first shooting in 2004, incidents have occurred about once every 149 days. (This is actually less frequently than they've occurred since 2009 alone. Since Obama became president, there's been a shooting every three months, as noted above.)

Which to use? Extrapolating from the Washington, D.C., shooting, the first value gave us a date of April 27, 2014. The latter gave us February 12. We were inclined to accept the February figure but, to make sure, calculated the months in which such shootings were most likely to take place. (See chart at right.) There have been six events in February and four in April. The former, then, is more historically likely. So February it was.

Spokane, Washington

We noticed, in looking at the data, that there was some correlation between the number of incidents in a state and its population — in other words, there were more incidents where there were more people. The most incidents occurred in the most populous state, California, which makes sense.

But there were anomalies. Specifically — Florida had the second-most number of shootings despite being fourth on the population list. So, using California's seven incidents as the peg, we calculated how many incidents would be expected in a state if they were tied solely to population. Florida, with a population of about half California's, would be expected to see about half as many shootings by that standard. The graph at left shows the difference between the number of shootings and the expected number of shootings. Washington state has had far more shootings than its population would predict — five incidents where 1.27 might have been expected. Illinois is on the other end of the spectrum, with only one incident compared to the 2.37 that population would suggest. So we focused on those two states as anomalies in the data. Would the next shooting happen where they happened more than expected or less?

To determine the answer to that, we went back to our other demographics. First, we used Census data to figure out what states had the most men aged 18 to 45 (the smallest category the Census offers) as a function of total population. Washington state ranks ninth in the number of people in that category; 18.46 percent of its residents are men in that age group. Illinois came twelfth. (California, we'll note, came third.)

Then there was mental health. The Centers for Disease Control tracks mental health data by region. We looked at annual data for "[s]erious psychological distress in the past 30 days among adults aged 18 and over" by region, as at left. The blue bar indicates the value for the percentage of the population in each region that suffered such distress in 2010-2011. The red bar, however, shows how that changed between 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. As you can see, the "West" region saw a dramatic increase.

We considered other factors, too, such as the recent report linking gun ownership to gun homicides. But those data correlated more strongly to non-mass-shootings. We were therefore willing to pick Washington as the most likely state.

In order to determine the city, we went back to population data. Calculating the average population of each location where these incidents occurred gave us an average population of about 214,000. The population of Spokane is about 209,000. (The city in Illinois closest to that figure, we'll note, is Aurora, which has about 200,000 people.)

Toll

Sadly, this was the easiest figure to develop. At the incidents we focused on, an average of 7.6 people were killed and 6.5 injured. The 67 incidents have seen over a thousand people killed or wounded.

Our sincere hope is that every prediction we made is wrong because no mass killings should happen again. The probability of that happening is not statistically significant.

Photo: Richard Farley was 39 in 1988 when he killed seven people at his former employer. (AP)

Most Popular

The special counsel indicted the Russian nationals and three Russian entities for allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election, the Department of Justice announced Friday.

On Friday, February 16, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein announced that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, had indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities on charges that including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. This is the full text of that indictment.

Students have mourned and rallied the public after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High that left 17 dead.

Something was different about the mass shooting this week in Parkland, Florida, in which 14 students and three adults were killed.

It was not only the death toll. The mass murder at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High became the deadliest high-school shooting in American history (edging out Columbine, which killed 13 in 1999).

What made Parkland different were the people who stepped forward to describe it. High-school students—the survivors of the calamity themselves—became the voice of the tragedy. Tweets that were widely reported as coming from the students expressed grief for the victims, pushed against false reports, and demanded accountability.

Outrage mobs are chipping away at democracy, one meaningless debate at a time.

The mob was unusually vociferous, even for Twitter. After the California-born ice skater Mirai Nagasu became the first American woman to land a triple axel at the Olympics, the New York Times writer Bari Weiss commented “Immigrants: They get the job done.”

What followed that innocuous tweet was one of the sillier, manufactured controversies I have ever seen on Twitter. Twitter’s socially conscious denizens probably only realized they should be outraged at Weiss after they saw other people being outraged, as is so often the case. Outside of Twitter, some of Weiss’s Times colleagues were also offended by the tweet—and even hurt by it. The critics’objection was that Nagasu isn’t herself an immigrant, but rather the child of immigrants, and so calling her one was an example of “perpetual othering.”

Tech analysts are prone to predicting utopia or dystopia. They’re worse at imagining the side effects of a firm's success.

The U.S economy is in the midst of a wrenching technological transformation that is fundamentally changing the way people sleep, work, eat, shop, love, read, and interact.

At least, that’s one interpretation.

A second story of this age of technological transformation says that it’s mostly a facade—that the last 30 years have been a productivity bust and little has changed in everyday life, aside from the way everyone reads and watches videos. People wanted flying cars and got Netflix binges instead.

Let’s call these the Disrupt Story and the Dud Story of technology. When a new company, app, or platform emerges, it’s common for analysts to divide into camps—Disrupt vs. Dud—with some yelping that the new thing will change everything and others yawning with the expectation that traditionalism will win out.

The director Ryan Coogler's addition to the Marvel pantheon is a superb genre film—and quite a bit more.

Note: Although this review avoids plot spoilers, it does discuss the thematic elements of the film at some length.

After an animated introduction to the fictional African kingdom of Wakanda, Black Panther opens in Oakland in 1992. This may seem an odd choice, but it is in fact quite apt. The film’s director, Ryan Coogler, got his start in the city, having been born there in 1986. His filmmaking career has its roots there, too, as it was the setting for his debut feature, Fruitvale Station.

A bunch of schoolboys (a fictionalized young Coogler perhaps among them) play pickup hoops on a court with a milk-crate basket. But in the tall apartment building above them two black radicals are plotting a robbery. There’s a knock on the door and one of the men looks through the peephole: “Two Grace Jones–lookin’ chicks—with spears!” I won’t recount the rest of the scene, except to note that the commingling of two very different iterations of the term “Black Panther”—the comic-book hero and the revolutionary organization, ironically established just months apart in 1966—is in no way accidental, and it will inform everything that follows.

The clear goal of the special counsel is to speak to the American public about the seriousness of Russian interference.

With yet another blockbuster indictment (why is it always on a Friday afternoon?), Special Counsel Robert Mueller has, once again, upended Washington. And this time, it is possible that his efforts may have a wider effect outside the Beltway.

For those following the matter, there has been little doubt that Russian citizens attempted to interfere with the American presidential election. The American intelligence agencies publicized that conclusion more than a year ago in a report issued in January 2017, and it has stood by the analysis whenever it has been questioned. But some in the country have doubted the assertion—asking for evidence of interference that was not forthcoming.

Now the evidence has been laid out in painful detail by the special counsel. If any significant fraction of what is alleged in the latest indictment is true (and we should, of course, remind ourselves that an indictment is just an allegation—not proof), then this tale is a stunning condemnation of Russian activity. A Russian organization with hundreds of employees and a budget of millions of dollars is said to have systematically engaged in an effort (code named “Project Lakhta”) to undermine the integrity of the election and, perhaps more importantly, to have attempted to influence the election to benefit then-candidate Donald Trump. Among the allegations, the Russians:

The company’s unusual offer—to give employees up to $5,000 for leaving—may actually be a way to get them to stay longer.

On Monday, Amazon reportedly began a series of rare layoffs at its headquarters in Seattle, cutting several hundred corporate employees. But this week, something quite different is happening at the company’s warehouses and customer-service centers across the country: Amazon will politely ask its “associates”—full-time and part-time hourly employees—if they’d prefer to quit. And if they do, Amazon will pay them as much as $5,000 for walking out the door.

Officially called “The Offer,” this proposition is, according to Amazon, a way to encourage unhappy employees to move on. “We believe staying somewhere you don’t want to be isn’t healthy for our employees or for the company,” Ashley Robinson, an Amazon spokesperson, wrote to me in an email. The amount full-time employees get offered ranges from $2,000 to $5,000, and depends on how long they have been at the company; if they take the money, they agree to never work for Amazon again. (The idea for all this originated at Zappos, the online shoe retailer that Amazon bought in 2009.)

Like it or not, the middle class became global citizens through consumerism—and they did so at the mall.

“Okay, we’ll see you in two-and-a-half hours,” the clerk tells me, taking the iPhone from my hand. I’m at the Apple Store, availing myself of a cheap smartphone battery replacement, an offer the company made after taking heat for deliberately slowing down devices. A test run by a young woman typing at a feverish, unnatural pace on an iPad confirms that mine desperately needed the swap. As she typed, I panicked. What will I do in the mall for so long, and without a phone? How far the mall has fallen that I rack my brain for something to do here.

The Apple Store captures everything I don’t like about today’s mall. A trip here is never easy—the place is packed and chaotic, even on weekdays. It runs by its own private logic, cashier and help desks replaced by roving youths in seasonally changing, colored T-shirts holding iPads, directing traffic.

The Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig discusses how Aaron Swartz's death shaped his own life's work.

Before he started working with Aaron Swartz, the Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig built his professional life around internet law and copyright policy. In the early 2000s, Lessig was at the top of his academic field, then working at Stanford. As an undergraduate student, Swartz, who had met Lessig at a computer conference when he was just 14, convinced the professor to radically change his career path.

The two developed a mentorship and partnership that would lead them to take on the complex goals of making information more accessible and demanding greater transparency from political institutions. Swartz became known for his involvement in Creative Commons and Reddit, and for his alleged attempt to make information from the academic-research site JSTOR free for public viewing. And then, in January of 2013, Swartz committed suicide. Lessig is still reeling from the loss.

Leggings and yoga gear are common sights at practice rinks. But in competition, gender-coded costumes still prevail.

Last weekend, one of the buzzier stories out of the Olympic ladies’ figure skating short program competition was one you might call … surprisingly surprising. The French figure skater Maé-Bérénice Méité made headlines: for the fact that she skated to a Beyoncé medley, and even more so, for the fact that she did it in pants.

More accurately, she did it in a bedazzled black unitard, but that didn’t stop news outlets and viewers on Twitter from pointing out Méité’s eye-catching, subtly subversive pants. “This French figure skater may not have won a medal, but her pants took people's choice,” raved Yahoo! News, and AOL named Méité’s bodysuit to its list of “most dazzling figure skating outfits” of these Olympic Games.